Menu

Huntsman Administration and Many Legislators Defend Benefits for Illegal Aliens

The 2009 Utah legislative session is over. It was a non-election year and it allowed the Huntsman Administration and many legislators to show their true colors. Governor Huntsman and many state legislators clearly showed that their true priorities lay with illegal immigrants and that they could care less about anyone who is a victim of illegal immigrant-driven identity theft.

Despite a slowing economy and thousands of legal workers competing for jobs, the legislature declined to take action that would reduce Utah’s role as a magnet state for illegal aliens. Committees killed bills that would have limited the ability of illegal aliens to obtain business and professional licenses (HB262) and to register their vehicles (HB344).

The House killed a bill that would have required illegal aliens receiving in-state tuition to refrain from committing document fraud, perjury on I-9 forms and identity theft in order to pay for their tuition (HB208). Representative McIff, a former judge, gave an impassioned speech defending the right of illegal aliens benefiting from in-state tuition to commit felonies in order to pay for their tuition and he even compared the sponsor of the bill to George Wallace blocking the school house door. Forty Representatives agreed with McIff and voted to allow students illegally in the U.S. to continue committing felonies.

In order to preserve benefits for illegal aliens, the Huntsman administration attached fiscal notes to the bill that would have rescinded the driving privilege card for illegal aliens (HB137). The Administration also slapped a fiscal note on the in-state tuition bill (HB208) just in case it passed the House. During a year of budget cuts, these were designed to make sure the bills did not pass even if the legislature had voted for them.

The only exception to this pattern of support for illegal aliens may be HB64, but that all depends on how “major felony” is interpreted. Personally, judging by the Legislature’s and Governor’s positions, I do not believe employment-related identity theft will be included in the definition.

I would urge that voting records be reviewed as there are several good legislators on this issue who should be supported.

Finally, remember, this is a non-election year and this is the record that should be looked at and remembered for the election. Do not be fooled by their actions in the 2010 legislative session as it will be insincere, election-year pandering.